Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. A former aide to Margaret Thatcher, Gardiner has served as a foreign policy adviser to two US presidential campaigns. He appears frequently on American and British television, including Fox News Channel, BBC, and Fox Business Network.

Why a nervous Hillary Clinton is remarkably silent on Syria

One voice in Washington that has been remarkably absent from this week’s Syria debate has been that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t said anything at all about President Obama’s plans for military strikes against the dictatorship in Damascus. As someone who dominated the US foreign policy landscape over the past four years, Clinton’s silence on Syria is striking. What explains this?

I suspect a number of factors are behind Hillary Clinton’s reticence. Firstly, a US military intervention in the Syrian civil war is strongly opposed by the vast majority of the American public. A recent poll showed just nine percent of Americans backing US military involvement. She probably doesn’t see another war in the Muslim world as a vote winner in 2016. Secondly, she may well be harbouring doubts over the White House approach, which beyond the talk of airstrikes, lacks a coherent strategy, and the president hasn’t exactly made a clear-cut case that taking America to war in Syria is in the national interest. Thirdly, as “the Obama doctrine” goes down in flames in the Middle East, from Damascus to Cairo, Clinton will be nervous about being seen as part and parcel of it, which of course she is.

Fourthly, Clinton’s own track record on Syria has hardly been stellar. Before Syria descended into war, Clinton was a strong backer of engagement with Syria, greatly underestimating the nature of the Baathist regime, famously referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” in April 2011. In addition, as Washington’s most senior foreign policy official, Clinton did little to stand up to Moscow’s aggressive support for the Syrians, eager to appease the Russians through the controversial “reset” strategy, which was her own brainchild. In addition, the Secretary of State was weak in the face of Iran, whose military and financial backing for the Assad regime has been vital to its survival.

Against this backdrop it’s not hard to see why Hillary Clinton isn’t at the forefront of the Syria debate. Her own handling of the Syria crisis was a spectacular failure, as has been President Obama's. The last thing she needs in the lead-up to her inevitable White House run is a reminder to Americans of her poor track record as Secretary of State, from the Syrian debacle to the farcical Russian reset. Syria is a liability for Clinton in 2016, and with good reason she is nervous about what happens next.